In-Depth with the Windows 8 Consumer Preview
by Andrew Cunningham, Ryan Smith, Kristian Vättö & Jarred Walton on March 9, 2012 10:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Microsoft
- Operating Systems
- Windows
- Windows 8
One of Microsoft’s stated goals for Windows 8 (and the only reason, really, why there continues to be a 32-bit version of the operating system) was to maintain compatibility with any system that could run Windows 7, so the official system requirements for the OS are going to be the same: a 1GHz processor, 1GB (x86) or 2GB (x64) of RAM, a DirectX 9.0 compatible graphics card with WDDM drivers, and a dozen or so gigabytes of hard drive space.
Under the terms of these requirements, Windows 8 could run on an old Pentium III equipped with an old ATI Radeon 9600 and a gigabyte of SDRAM (and, knowing computer enthusiasts, it probably will), but what are the actual minimum requirements that will yield a usable machine? Will Windows 8 actually run well on anything Windows 7 ran on? And, most importantly, is it a good idea for you to upgrade your old system? To help you out, I've put together a list of specs that I think will get you an acceptable Windows 8 experience (for the purposes of this review, I assume you meet the hard drive requirements already).
|
Microsoft minimum system requirements |
AnandTech minimum system requirements |
|
| CPU | 1 GHz or better | Dual-core processor or better |
| GPU | DirectX 9.0-capable with WDDM driver | 256MB DirectX 10.0-capable GPU or IGP |
| x86 RAM (x64 RAM) | 1GB (2GB) | 2GB (4GB) |
As you can see from the Hardware Used in This Review page, I’ve put Windows 8 through its paces on a fairly wide array of hardware both old and new, fast and slow. The good news is that Microsoft’s claims are true, and that Windows 8 runs ably on hardware that ran Windows 7, even netbooks that flirt with Microsoft's minimum system requirements. In some cases, as in boot speed, Windows 8 actually performs substantially better than its predecessor, but it’s not going to make old hardware new again—if your poky processor or low RAM impacted your PC’s performance under Windows 7, Windows 8 isn’t a magic bullet that’s going to make those problems go away.
One thing to pay especial attention to as you evaluate whether to upgrade a computer to Windows 8 is its GPU. In my experience with testing, Metro was surprisingly fluid even on an old Intel GMA 950, which is just about the weakest, oldest GPU that still meets the minimum system requirements. You won’t want to use it to push multiple monitors, but for basic Metro and Aero usage it performed reasonably well on the laptop’s 1440x900 display. The same goes for the Intel GMA X3100 and ATI Radeon X1600, the two other DirectX9 GPUs in my lineup of test machines.
Where things start to fall apart is in Metro apps—basic ones like Mail and Photos work fine, but things that are even modestly graphically demanding are going to choke on these old DirectX 9-class graphics chips. Even plain old Solitaire suffered from input lag and poor performance on these GPUs.
For gaming and other purposes, Microsoft recommends you use a DirectX10 or better GPU in Windows 8, and I agree—for anything more than basic Start screen functionality, you’ll want a dedicated DirectX10 or 11 GPU, or IGPs starting with Intel’s 4-series GPU, AMD’s Radeon 3200, or NVIDIA’s GeForce 9400—stuff that was current right around when Windows 7 was launching. The stronger the GPU the better, of course, but after evaluating performance on quite a few different machines I’d say that this is probably the minimum you’ll want for a consistent Windows 8 experience, especially if you’re using multiple monitors.
The other problem with DirectX9 GPUs, of course, is driver support—while Intel appears to be issuing new Windows 8 drivers for all of its WDDM-supported products (Windows 8’s driver for the GMA 950 is version 8.15.10.2548 dated 10/4/2011, compared to Windows 7’s version 8.15.10.1930 dated 9/23/2009) and NVIDIA offers current drivers for its GeForce 6000 and 7000 series cards, neither AMD or NVIDIA offer drivers for DirectX9 laptop GPUs, and AMD stopped offering new drivers for DirectX9 cards in early 2010.
It goes without saying that computers being sold today, namely Sandy Bridge CPUs and anything branded as a part of AMD’s Fusion platform, run all of Metro’s flair just great, and the Ivy Bridge chips that will be current when Windows 8 lands in stores later this year will be even better.
My last note on system requirements involves hard drives—while Windows 8 ran pretty well even on cheap 5400 RPM mechanical HDDs, we here at AnandTech are huge advocates of using solid-state drives in just about any computer physically capable of using one. No matter what OS you use, a good SSD is the best upgrade you can buy to speed up your computer and make performance more consistent, and Windows 8 is no exception.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
286 Comments
View All Comments
rs2 - Sunday, March 11, 2012 - link
Seriously? I do not want either of those things.Please tell me that these are artifacts of running Windows 8 on a system with an underpowered graphics card, or at least that the rounded corners and "glass" effects simply have not been built in to the preview version.
Andrew.a.cunningham - Sunday, March 11, 2012 - link
Square windows here to stay, not a big deal. Windows borders can get more or less opaque depending on your settings, just like in 7.rs2 - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
Maybe not a big deal, objectively speaking, but it feels like a step backwards to me. Between that and Metro I'm seriously considering just sticking with Windows 7. It does everything I need in a way that I like, with no trade-offs being made to support touch-based devices (which my desktop isn't).I'm starting to get the feeling that Microsoft could have another "XP vs. Vista" debacle on its hands, no? Back then I switched to Vista but never really felt that it was a significant improvement until Windows 7 came around. I didn't hate Vista or think that it was worse than XP the way a lot of people seemed to, but I wasn't really thrilled with it either. Windows 7 was an unquestionable improvement over both Vista and XP, however.
Perhaps this time I'll stick with "legacy" Windows 7 until Windows 9 comes out.
Andrew.a.cunningham - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
Totally possible! Especially so in businesses, which move more slowly and are only now rolling 7 out over XP.The rounded vs. square corners thing is a matter of taste, I guess. It does seem to be showing up everywhere - Lion killed rounded buttons in favor of squared ones too. It's not important to me, but I suppose it is a little "old-school." :-)
AnnonymousCoward - Sunday, March 11, 2012 - link
Every new OS simply needs an option to use the old UI. That would take away the fundamental reason why users don't want newer OS's.I refuse to use anything beyond XP. Vista's and 7's Explorer is less functional, and other various UI functionality is different for the worse. Likewise, IE7/8/9 have a topbar that lacks real functionality and can't be customized, unlike IE6.
DanaGoyette - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
Here are a couple of oddities I've noticed:* Start screen... If you try scrolling horizontally with a touchpad, absolutely nothing happens. In the developer preview, I had to read online to find out why the danged thing wouldn't scroll.
* Split-up search sucks.
Try this in Windows 7: Windows key -> "featu". So long as you don't have, say, "bluetooth feature pack" installed, you can just press enter to get to "Programs and Features".
Try it in Windows 8: Windows key -> Featu. Down, down, enter, enter. 4 key presses required to replace the original 'enter'.
* Start screen, another thing to try: Windows 7: search for something, then press the "context menu" key on the keyboard. You should get the right-click menu of the highlighted item. Windows 8: you get the right-click menu for the textbox you're typing in!
* The boot process seems weird on my Intel 320 SSD. After the initial disk activity, it sits there doing apparently nothing (no disk activity) for over 30 seconds. Effective boot time is around 60 seconds, not including POST. For comparison, resuming from hibernate to the login screen takes only about 4 seconds.
* You ever try it on a pen-only (Wacom) Tablet PC? It's worse than a mouse, because it seems to actively disable the screen corner gestures -- they don't work with the pen OR the touchpad on that system.
Now, for a nifty thing to try: right-click in the lower-left corner of the screen.
mbf - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
Fixed that error on page 3 for you:"..Microsoft insists that the PC is just another kind of tablet..."
vivekgarg79 - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
I have x86 (32 bit) m/c. I want to develop metro UI app, using VS2011 for windows 8. Will VS 2011 (x86) work on top of Windows 8 consumer preview (x86)??haplo602 - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
I read the first 3 pages, then skipped to the conclusion. I realised I don't give a damn about any new Windows/Tiles version. Happy Linux camper since Windows XP.The UI change will be a big jump. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
iwod - Monday, March 12, 2012 - link
I couldn't believe how positive this review was, from a technical user prospective.And it surely prove M$ has little to no understanding of how UI should be designed. There is now Metro, and a half baked Desktop environment. I can see more user jumping on to Mac platform when Windows 8 comes out.
I think the root of all wrong doings; Tablet is just another PC. Which is where it all goes wrong.
P.S - I have been forcing Metro on myself for week now. I can definitely say it "could" be a great Tablet OS. Desktop? I will pass.